LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Uncategorized (needs manual review)Supreme Court of India

Bikram Chatterji & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2022 INSC 1180Decided 7 Nov 2022
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 940 of 2017
Uday Umesh Lalit with Justice Ajay Rastogi · Uday Umesh Lalit with Justice Bela M. Trivedi

Background

This is part of the Supreme Court's continuing supervision of the Amrapali Group housing-fraud litigation, where the Court had earlier cancelled Amrapali's leases, appointed a Court Receiver and NBCC to complete stalled projects, and in 2020 reduced to 8% per annum the interest payable by Amrapali to the Noida and Greater Noida Authorities on outstanding land dues. Other builders unrelated to Amrapali (Ace, Prateek, Supertech, Ajnara, Paramount groups) later obtained similar interest reductions by riding on applications listed alongside the Amrapali matter, prompting Noida and Greater Noida Authorities to seek recall of those orders as wrongly extended beyond Amrapali. Separately, in the same writ petition, an associate named Prem Mishra sought release of attached properties tied to an Amrapali-linked Indore project, after the Enforcement Directorate had quantified and confirmed a lower siphoned amount than the forensic auditors' estimate.

Decision Breakdown

On the interest-rate applications, the Court held that its earlier interest-reduction orders were meant only for Amrapali-linked projects and had erroneously and inadvertently been extended to unrelated builders' projects without adequate notice to the Authorities or full appreciation of the roughly Rs. 7,500 crore combined financial impact; it recalled those orders as applied to non-Amrapali projects and directed Noida/Greater Noida to recalculate dues under the State Government's separate general interest-reduction notification instead. On the Prem Mishra application, the Court declined to release the attached properties, holding that his claimed ownership rested only on an unregistered MoU with unresolved legal status, that the bulk of investment in the underlying land had in fact come from Amrapali Group funds, and that his entitlement was still undetermined, so attachment beyond the ED-confirmed siphoned amount could not be lifted at this stage; that issue was left to be decided along with connected applications.

Lesson Learnt

Courts exercising ongoing supervisory jurisdiction over a specific set of parties (here, Amrapali homebuyers) will correct and recall relief that was inadvertently extended to unconnected third parties riding on the same case number, and will not release attached assets based on a claimant's own unregistered agreement when the true source of the underlying investment remains disputed.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)
Bikram Chatterji & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware